You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Probably so, unless you actually speak with the person and find out what internal values are the reasoning behind whatever opinion.

But, then you'd have to know enough about functions to be able to ascribe one (mix) to the information you've found out about the person. Right?

You got mixed between Si & Fi, and other instances. And, it's not just you, I can too (as my knowledge of functions is quite basic), and I'm going to guess that most of us on this board are the same. However, even with such rudimentary understanding, how do you, with intellectual integrity, go ahead and generalize with such confidence that you are correctly ascribing whatever you see in a person? And, then sit comfortably in your decision of summing up a person in such manner.

Heck, I'm at fault for ascribing a type to people in my life, who haven't seen an MBTI specialist to get their type, and I will ponder over the actions of that person, rising from my assumption of their type. There's holes to that method. But, as long as it's used for 'good', and not for negative othering, assuming bias about them due to whatever 'type' I've ascribed, I dunno, I can then still sleep at night.

You're right that an S-type person could have better N than an N-type. A brilliant ESTP is probably better at all of his functions than a mentally retarded ENTP.

Actually between two friends, where one has tested as an ENTJ (through her career counsellor) and the other, who I assume is an ISTP (the sensing is very apparent in him), the latter is the one to more likely go off in their own head/daydream than the ENTJ. And when he speaks, if I shed the layers of what he said, there's a lot of intuitive thoughts, he just likes to lay it out more concretely (how it applies to the here and now) when he finally decides on his contemplation.

But again, look at the posts on this thread. It's no coincidence that lots of Ns have a definite communication gap with Ss in general.

We had the most apparent disagreement thus far, it seems, on this thread. From one ENTP to another.

Like I was saying earlier, it's all about averages.

Even without labelling specific functions as the culprits behind particular situations, we can still get enough information so as to be useful by directly interviewing a person regarding his functional preferences. We may not be able to say, "He's acting this way in situation x because of function y", but we can say with a reasonable amount of certainty that, given appropriate self-descriptions, he tends to prefer either Sensing or iNtuition more often than the other...and that's all MBTI really seeks to do.

Don't disagree, I'm just letting you know how limited you become if you stay within MBTI when assessing a person, and to be especially carefully of the shortfalls of subscribing to MBTI if you take away anything 'negative' from a person due to assumptions held by MBTI function/type descriptions.

Heck no dude. Everyone knows feelers are incapable of logical reasoning, thinkers are incapable of feeling emotion, sensors can't intuit and don't have an imagination, and that intuitives are incapable of realizing the real world around them. Seriously, this is common knowledge.

If we take seriously the prejudice thrown at the sensors, then it must mean intuitives are incapable of realizing the real world around them, and same with the thinking/feeling dichotomy, and pretty soon, this world then is populated by unbalanced messed up individuals, with the intuits banging into walls and falling over cliffs, while the sensors can't figure out how time moved from here & now, to...then. And feelers are just in the corner their eyes out while thinkers, even with their great skills, are left at this world around us. Yes! On, with the merits of such prejudice. It makes perfect sense in the real world.

It's not that hard for a Feeler to access T, just like it isn't completely foreign for sensors to intuit as well. (and vice versa)

The difficulty is that the MBTI offers a binary classification model -- you're either x or y.

As each digit within the system is designed in opposition to its partner (an S prefers to concentrate on the concrete; an N would rather explore hypotheticals), the belief is embedded that your preference determines exclusive ability. As your example offers, it is reasonable to encounter an F who excels in T-related fields. While his cognitive ideal remains centered on the thoughtful exploration of emotion, his talent for thinking isn't necessarily compromised as a result.

This either/or fallacy seems to generate a lot of speculation and intellectual misdirection. People confuse Thinking with intellect; Feeling with wisdom. The MBTI is designed to unify would-be obstacles in communication by examining the different ways people decipher their world. It isn't a device offered to evaluate talent or psychological health.

On the forum, Intuition is held in high regard, and there's many instances of looking down on Sensors. I understand that the forum has way more intuits than sensors, but, why this prejudice? What about sensing (and its typological defintion) that makes it seem 'less superior' to intuition (as per the commentaries on this board)?

Wow and you just started this thread yesterday! It seems quite simple that people base their prejudices here as someone would in the real world, mere ignorance of type principles. It doesn't take long to know the lack of knowledge which many times comes out in the subjects being discussed, i.e., type rarity, Ne being similar to Ni, thinkers being non-emotional, introverts being shy. The list goes on. As for sensing types, I immediately question the writer's knowledge then they group them together as though Se types have a great deal in common with Si types.

^ I'll never believe N as a function is "preferred" in the working world, I mean ALL the working world, not just certain select positions. Maybe genius level NT for certain jobs.

So you would only accept statistics that show that every job in the entire world would prefer N? o_O That's certainly not going to be the case. In any case, N is preferred in the military as well - ranks, ability, predictive success, AFAIK.

F and P, however, are not popular in the working and military world. And most of the complaints tend to fall into one or both of those categories.

Originally Posted by toonia

Pretty much every Disney movie celebrates a suppressed misunderstood dreamer/iNtuitive type who emerges victorious in a world of practicality and routine. These films make booga bucks and are the definition of mainstream.

I believe that age is the major factor here - children tend to show more N traits (or, at least, IIRC, test more N).

So you would only accept statistics that show that every job in the entire world would prefer N? o_O That's certainly not going to be the case. In any case, N is preferred in the military as well - ranks, ability, predictive success, AFAIK.

F and P, however, are not popular in the working and military world. And most of the complaints tend to fall into one or both of those categories.

It depends on how you define "preferred". The backbone of the military is the common soldiers who follow directions to the T... (STJ :p ) If you talk about advancement... then yes that's true.

F & P have their uses... just not in your typical 9-5 type of jobs.

-----

Here's what I don't understand about this thread... I thought things ought to be clear after such a long discussion. Certainly I've been reading the same sort of arguments repeated. When does it stop?

It depends on how you define "preferred". The backbone of the military is the common soldiers who follow directions to the T... (STJ :p ) If you talk about advancement... then yes that's true.

The TJ part is true at any level. The S/N can get into a large discussion with a lot of arguments, given that there is a preference for Ss to be in the military, but the N preference at any level comes from their own research (predictive success across the board). At best, it can be said that Ns are less likely to join due to having alternative options (like, say, higher education preferences or corporate life.)

Perhaps preferred is the wrong word. What I can say is that Ss are the ones hitting the "glass ceiling" in life, if either of them are. So hearing Ns whine about their unfortunate lot in life is, to my ears, ridiculous. And it's made more so when they complain about being a minority when the whole thing is just a spectrum of preferences in the first place, and when the test was designed on descriptions that clearly favored creating a minority of "special" people. It's... contrived.

That, and that the other three elements have as large if not larger costs that span a large spectrum... It irritates me to, essentially hear, "We stereotype Ss because they aren't as 'good' [according to some metric or another], but it's so tough being an N" in every single one of these threads.

The TJ part is true at any level. The S/N can get into a large discussion with a lot of arguments, given that there is a preference for Ss to be in the military, but the N preference at any level comes from their own research (predictive success across the board). At best, it can be said that Ns are less likely to join due to having alternative options (like, say, higher education preferences or corporate life.)

Perhaps preferred is the wrong word. What I can say is that Ss are the ones hitting the "glass ceiling" in life, if either of them are. So hearing Ns whine about their unfortunate lot in life is, to my ears, ridiculous. And it's made more so when they complain about being a minority when the whole thing is just a spectrum of preferences in the first place, and when the test was designed on descriptions that clearly favored creating a minority of "special" people. It's... contrived.

That, and that the other three elements have as large if not larger costs that span a large spectrum... It irritates me to, essentially hear, "We stereotype Ss because they aren't as 'good' [according to some metric or another], but it's so tough being an N" in every single one of these threads.

<In before "you'd understand if you were an N".>

You know throughout this whole thread the bolded statement is exactly what I've been thinking. I mean really, being an intuitive is minority status? Seriously? I'm thinking really hard about this and I do not believe people are conflating intuition to minority status. I can see that for maybe literal numbers, but otherwise?

Even taking a cursory glance through most MBTI websites shows that (not that I believe for a minute the typing is accurate or anything) most of the brilliant minds: scientists, artists, leaders, humanitarians, conquerors, intellectuals, revolutionaries, God, Jesus Christ, and Satan (angels and demons don't count since they are the worker bees and minions. Obviously sensors.) are typed as intuitives.

So really, intuitives are a mistreated minority group? Is this what people are asserting? Wow, I should've left this thread unread and forlorn.

Since I'm a helpful Fe, I willingly volunteer to hand deliver an Intuitive Declaration of Independence to the very steps of the White House and nail copies to all the House Office Buildings. I'll face a violent death in a storm of gunshots and my family will be forced to have a closed casket funeral if I attempt to even climb over the wrought iron gates, but I'm willing to do this because gotdammit we need another revolution. No guts, no glory. Your voices will be heard! And I'll get to be martyr for the cause which makes this all the more appealing.

Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.Interpersonal Communication Theories and ConceptsSocial Penetration Theory 1Social Penetration Theory 2Social Penetration Theory 3

I believe that age is the major factor here - children tend to show more N traits (or, at least, IIRC, test more N).

I can see this in terms of being a "dreamer" and such. However the development of cognitive processing in children moves from concrete to abstract. Children are especially "hands on". If you want to teach a child a new idea, it is ineffective to present a theory. They have to feel, see, taste, and smell each concept or they don't learn. There is also a stage of development that is rule-bound(elementary age), so information is best presented in clear, rather absolute terms. It is only after this stage, during adolescence that cognitive processing allows for examining grey areas and uncertainties. It is interesting that all this is balanced also with the childhood focus on imagination.

It is interesting that the misunderstood dreamer is such a fundamental part of our cultural narrative. It is consistent in Disney, but clearly exists in novels and movies intended for adults (although not with the same absolute consistency) I don't have a specific conclusion on everything this implies, but it does seem rather compelling especially in relation to this particular discussion.